"SAFESPEED" in the London Lite Today
Discussion
London Lite Letters 31/1/07 said:
"SAFESPEED" campaigners seem to suggest that a driver should be able to choose a safe speed at which to drive which may or may not be under the speed limit. Presumably thats what the driver who smashed into my mother at 45mph in a 30mph zone decided to do. Mum was rendered bed bound for nearly six months, lost her independence, her health and her mobility. Get a grip and slow down, speeding ruins lives and terrorises other road users. - MD, Chiswick
Purely an emotional response (which I can understand. I would probably be the same if it was my mother)
However, its a little short on the facts: Driver doing 45 in 30 zone. Hits 'mother'.
Road conditions? Time of day?
Hit straight in the rear? If so, what speed was 'mother' doing?
Did 'mother' pull out of side road / away from kerb into path of 'driver'?
What type of cars were they? (Size differential)
Was 'mother' even in a car. Its not clear from stating "smashed into mother".
Did she walk out into the road without looking?
Too many variables and unanswered questions to simply intimate that driver doing 45mph was wholly at fault.
However, its a little short on the facts: Driver doing 45 in 30 zone. Hits 'mother'.
Road conditions? Time of day?
Hit straight in the rear? If so, what speed was 'mother' doing?
Did 'mother' pull out of side road / away from kerb into path of 'driver'?
What type of cars were they? (Size differential)
Was 'mother' even in a car. Its not clear from stating "smashed into mother".
Did she walk out into the road without looking?
Too many variables and unanswered questions to simply intimate that driver doing 45mph was wholly at fault.
flemke said:
Or was driver under the influence of drink or drugs, or driving without licence or insurance, in which cases it would have made no difference if the speed limit had been 10, with a camera every 20 yards.
But even if it is a drunk without a licence, does 45 make him riskier than 30 or not ?
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 31st January 23:45
vonhosen said:
Did 45 in a 30 make it better or worse ?
More risky or less risky ?
More risky or less risky ?
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 31st January 23:23
Did the speed cameras make this better or worse?
Did having a road safety policy based on flawed science, dumbed down drivers, and lack of individual responsibility make this more risky or less risky?
We know very little about this incident. Who was the driver? Were they drunk? Were they even resident or trained in the UK? Were they tired? Do speed cameras have any effect on the topics I've just mentioned? Has the massive focus on speed, a causal factor in a minority of accidents, assisted this poor woman in any way, shape or form?
Speed has become such a demon, it is distracting policy makers and individuals from the true causes of accidents. If we're not going to give education, training, and engineering the same focus as speed then we may as well just give in and force everyone to drive foam rubber cars that are limited to 20mph.
711 said:
vonhosen said:
Did 45 in a 30 make it better or worse ?
More risky or less risky ?
More risky or less risky ?
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 31st January 23:23
Did the speed cameras make this better or worse?
Did having a road safety policy based on flawed science, dumbed down drivers, and lack of individual responsibility make this more risky or less risky?
We know very little about this incident. Who was the driver? Were they drunk? Were they even resident or trained in the UK? Were they tired? Do speed cameras have any effect on the topics I've just mentioned? Has the massive focus on speed, a causal factor in a minority of accidents, assisted this poor woman in any way, shape or form?
Speed has become such a demon, it is distracting policy makers and individuals from the true causes of accidents. If we're not going to give education, training, and engineering the same focus as speed then we may as well just give in and force everyone to drive foam rubber cars that are limited to 20mph.
Because you can't take speed out of it, it exaggerates the other weaknesses even where it isn't the primary causation factor. Being drunk slows down your responses, higher velocity gives you less time to take evasive action or gives others less time to avoid you. It also effects severity of outcome.
I don't say speed has to be dangerous per se, but ignoring that it creates risk makes you a greater risk, because you are sticking your head in the sand over it's effect. I do travel at very high speeds sometimes, but I don't do it in the belief that it isn't riskier than traveling around at the limit. I'm not in denial, I'm aware that there is greater risk to myself & others by doing so & the consequences of any error on my part are potentially far greater. There is greater risk for the skilled & there is greater risk of a far larger magnitude still for the less skilled.
vonhosen said:
711 said:
vonhosen said:
Did 45 in a 30 make it better or worse ?
More risky or less risky ?
More risky or less risky ?
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 31st January 23:23
Did the speed cameras make this better or worse?
Did having a road safety policy based on flawed science, dumbed down drivers, and lack of individual responsibility make this more risky or less risky?
We know very little about this incident. Who was the driver? Were they drunk? Were they even resident or trained in the UK? Were they tired? Do speed cameras have any effect on the topics I've just mentioned? Has the massive focus on speed, a causal factor in a minority of accidents, assisted this poor woman in any way, shape or form?
Speed has become such a demon, it is distracting policy makers and individuals from the true causes of accidents. If we're not going to give education, training, and engineering the same focus as speed then we may as well just give in and force everyone to drive foam rubber cars that are limited to 20mph.
Because you can't take speed out of it, it exaggerates the other weaknesses even where it isn't the primary causation factor. Being drunk slows down your responses, higher velocity gives you less time to take evasive action or gives others less time to avoid you. It also effects severity of outcome.
I don't say speed has to be dangerous per se, but ignoring that it creates risk makes you a greater risk, because you are sticking your head in the sand over it's effect. I do travel at very high speeds sometimes, but I don't do it in the belief that it isn't riskier than traveling around at the limit. I'm not in denial, I'm aware that there is greater risk to myself & others by doing so & the consequences of any error on my part are potentially far greater. There is greater risk for the skilled & there is greater risk of a far larger magnitude still for the less skilled.
Von, I'm not in denial about the physics of momentum and energy.
But whilst we are talking about denial, lets talk about policies that do not seem to take into account the human factors, and which focus on one factor rather than the majority causal factors.
Thinking about the majority of 30 limits in Central London, 45 would be way in excess of what is safe at most times of day. The person who selects that as a speed clearly has little ability and probably no respect or care for skillful driving. Their attitude means that they are likely to be making other driving errors or aggressive manouvres. The massive focus on speed is not helping to address this, and the overuse of cameras means that focus is being diverted away from properly policing the roads....
711 said:
vonhosen said:
711 said:
vonhosen said:
Did 45 in a 30 make it better or worse ?
More risky or less risky ?
More risky or less risky ?
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 31st January 23:23
Did the speed cameras make this better or worse?
Did having a road safety policy based on flawed science, dumbed down drivers, and lack of individual responsibility make this more risky or less risky?
We know very little about this incident. Who was the driver? Were they drunk? Were they even resident or trained in the UK? Were they tired? Do speed cameras have any effect on the topics I've just mentioned? Has the massive focus on speed, a causal factor in a minority of accidents, assisted this poor woman in any way, shape or form?
Speed has become such a demon, it is distracting policy makers and individuals from the true causes of accidents. If we're not going to give education, training, and engineering the same focus as speed then we may as well just give in and force everyone to drive foam rubber cars that are limited to 20mph.
Because you can't take speed out of it, it exaggerates the other weaknesses even where it isn't the primary causation factor. Being drunk slows down your responses, higher velocity gives you less time to take evasive action or gives others less time to avoid you. It also effects severity of outcome.
I don't say speed has to be dangerous per se, but ignoring that it creates risk makes you a greater risk, because you are sticking your head in the sand over it's effect. I do travel at very high speeds sometimes, but I don't do it in the belief that it isn't riskier than traveling around at the limit. I'm not in denial, I'm aware that there is greater risk to myself & others by doing so & the consequences of any error on my part are potentially far greater. There is greater risk for the skilled & there is greater risk of a far larger magnitude still for the less skilled.
Von, I'm not in denial about the physics of momentum and energy.
But whilst we are talking about denial, lets talk about policies that do not seem to take into account the human factors, and which focus on one factor rather than the majority causal factors.
Thinking about the majority of 30 limits in Central London, 45 would be way in excess of what is safe at most times of day. The person who selects that as a speed clearly has little ability and probably no respect or care for skillful driving. Their attitude means that they are likely to be making other driving errors or aggressive manouvres. The massive focus on speed is not helping to address this, and the overuse of cameras means that focus is being diverted away from properly policing the roads....
I have not said that I advocate prosecuting to tight margins, but what we have to get away from is the "I'm a good driver, I'm safe, I can judge what speed is appropriate & will drive to what I think is appropriate irresepective of the limit" attitude.
As I said there is a higher risk in traveling at much higher speeds, so I only do it in certain circumstances. Circumstances that the public deem there is a tangible accepted benefit in me doing so, despite the higher risk. If they want to change their mind about that, fine I'll live with it & respect their wishes.
What we don't have though is a situation where the public have expressed that they find the extra risk of allowing everyone to choose what speed they think suitable, irrespective of the limit, as acceptable. (i.e. They haven't said that they want to abolish speed limits.)
spnracing said:
London Lite Letters 31/1/07 said:
"SAFESPEED" campaigners seem to suggest that a driver should be able to choose a safe speed at which to drive which may or may not be under the speed limit. Presumably thats what the driver who smashed into my mother at 45mph in a 30mph zone decided to do. Mum was rendered bed bound for nearly six months, lost her independence, her health and her mobility. Get a grip and slow down, speeding ruins lives and terrorises other road users. - MD, Chiswick
Have you got the original link please spn?
How has it been verified that the driver was actually doing 45mph?
Can you post a link please spnracing? I would very much like to establish some facts about this incident if possible? Is "MD, Chiswick" contactable?
I do have every sympathy with the author if sincere, but I cannot accept the use of the words "speeding ruins lives and terrorises other road users" as coming from a logical person, and I believe an agenda may be present here. I also don't accept 45mph is dangerous per se as the letter implies. At the very least please tell us whether the mother was on foot or in another car or perhaps on a bicycle???
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
Or was driver under the influence of drink or drugs, or driving without licence or insurance, in which cases it would have made no difference if the speed limit had been 10, with a camera every 20 yards.
But even if it is a drunk without a licence, does 45 make him riskier than 30 or not ?
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 31st January 23:45
In a black and white narrow world von, yes more dangerous at 45.
But in the real world, an unlicensed driver who sticks to 30 would stay around and present a continued risk alot longer than if he risked 45. In that respect, those unlicensed who are silly enough to risk 45 and thereby increase their chances of being caught at 45 in a 30, would at least be dealt with quicker and removed from the roads sooner than those sticking to 30. If he stuck to 30 he would possibly never be caught. Or are you implying he would only be a danger at 45 and not 30, which is of course not the case if we're talking about unlicensed drivers?
spnracing said:
London Lite Letters 31/1/07 said:
"SAFESPEED" campaigners seem to suggest that a driver should be able to choose a safe speed at which to drive which may or may not be under the speed limit. Presumably thats what the driver who smashed into my mother at 45mph in a 30mph zone decided to do. Mum was rendered bed bound for nearly six months, lost her independence, her health and her mobility. Get a grip and slow down, speeding ruins lives and terrorises other road users. - MD, Chiswick
Yawn. Crashing at 45mph indicates that the speed wasn't safe. Perhaps looking at the cause of the crash would be more helpful? Or perhaps looking at the causes of the 95% of crashes that don't involve ANY speeding vehicle?
Anyway, I expect it's inspired by someone with a vested interest.
vonhosen said:
I have not said that I advocate prosecuting to tight margins, but what we have to get away from is the "I'm a good driver, I'm safe, I can judge what speed is appropriate & will drive to what I think is appropriate irresepective of the limit" attitude.
As I said there is a higher risk in traveling at much higher speeds, so I only do it in certain circumstances. Circumstances that the public deem there is a tangible accepted benefit in me doing so, despite the higher risk. If they want to change their mind about that, fine I'll live with it & respect their wishes.
What we don't have though is a situation where the public have expressed that they find the extra risk of allowing everyone to choose what speed they think suitable, irrespective of the limit, as acceptable. (i.e. They haven't said that they want to abolish speed limits.)
As I said there is a higher risk in traveling at much higher speeds, so I only do it in certain circumstances. Circumstances that the public deem there is a tangible accepted benefit in me doing so, despite the higher risk. If they want to change their mind about that, fine I'll live with it & respect their wishes.
What we don't have though is a situation where the public have expressed that they find the extra risk of allowing everyone to choose what speed they think suitable, irrespective of the limit, as acceptable. (i.e. They haven't said that they want to abolish speed limits.)
If drivers were machines that processed data at a set rate then your statement about ‘there is a higher risk in traveling at much higher speeds’ would be correct because the increase in speed equates to increase in the data to be processed. Human beings are not machines and scientific evidence has shown that if you make drivers drive at a speed too slow for the conditions then there is actually more risk, not less risk (85th percentile!).
What we don’t know is if the limit in this case was set at a reasonable speed or was set to low.
I don’t advocate the removal of speed limits. In fact, I think they are essential but, in order to work they have to be respected and in order to be respected they have to be set at appropriate levels using scientific analysis not emotion and political spin.
black-k1 said:
vonhosen said:
I have not said that I advocate prosecuting to tight margins, but what we have to get away from is the "I'm a good driver, I'm safe, I can judge what speed is appropriate & will drive to what I think is appropriate irresepective of the limit" attitude.
As I said there is a higher risk in traveling at much higher speeds, so I only do it in certain circumstances. Circumstances that the public deem there is a tangible accepted benefit in me doing so, despite the higher risk. If they want to change their mind about that, fine I'll live with it & respect their wishes.
What we don't have though is a situation where the public have expressed that they find the extra risk of allowing everyone to choose what speed they think suitable, irrespective of the limit, as acceptable. (i.e. They haven't said that they want to abolish speed limits.)
As I said there is a higher risk in traveling at much higher speeds, so I only do it in certain circumstances. Circumstances that the public deem there is a tangible accepted benefit in me doing so, despite the higher risk. If they want to change their mind about that, fine I'll live with it & respect their wishes.
What we don't have though is a situation where the public have expressed that they find the extra risk of allowing everyone to choose what speed they think suitable, irrespective of the limit, as acceptable. (i.e. They haven't said that they want to abolish speed limits.)
If drivers were machines that processed data at a set rate then your statement about ‘there is a higher risk in traveling at much higher speeds’ would be correct because the increase in speed equates to increase in the data to be processed. Human beings are not machines and scientific evidence has shown that if you make drivers drive at a speed too slow for the conditions then there is actually more risk, not less risk (85th percentile!).
What we don’t know is if the limit in this case was set at a reasonable speed or was set to low.
I don’t advocate the removal of speed limits. In fact, I think they are essential but, in order to work they have to be respected and in order to be respected they have to be set at appropriate levels using scientific analysis not emotion and political spin.
I'm fine with your talk of setting appropriate limits, but it's our job to obey the limits set & challenge those who set them where we feel they are inappropriate. That doesn't mean we do so by wilfully disobeying them & driving to what we personally judge as the maximum safe speed achieveable without any regard for the set limit (& then expect to keep our licences).
What's amusing (in a grim and annoying way) is the implicit assertion that if the collision had been at 30MPH, then it would have been all alright and instead of blood and guts, the scene would have been covered in faerie farts. I've known people run over at 30MPH. Not a faerie fart in sight or smell, although they did apparently learn to walk again.
(Good in-thread points about lack of data and circumstance noted.)
In almost all circumstances, anyone who hits anyone else at any speed is partially to blame. What was it police drivers used to be told? "You will be involved in no accident for which you are not at least partially to blame".
But no, "mother" was blameless. As the quote in the OP provides no context, I'm going to feel free to make some up, and have "mother" turning right across someone else's priority.
45MPH!
[nan]What a
ing liberty![/nan]
(Good in-thread points about lack of data and circumstance noted.)
In almost all circumstances, anyone who hits anyone else at any speed is partially to blame. What was it police drivers used to be told? "You will be involved in no accident for which you are not at least partially to blame".
But no, "mother" was blameless. As the quote in the OP provides no context, I'm going to feel free to make some up, and have "mother" turning right across someone else's priority.
45MPH!
[nan]What a
ing liberty![/nan] safespeed said:
spnracing said:
London Lite Letters 31/1/07 said:
"SAFESPEED" campaigners seem to suggest that a driver should be able to choose a safe speed at which to drive which may or may not be under the speed limit. Presumably thats what the driver who smashed into my mother at 45mph in a 30mph zone decided to do. Mum was rendered bed bound for nearly six months, lost her independence, her health and her mobility. Get a grip and slow down, speeding ruins lives and terrorises other road users. - MD, Chiswick
Yawn. Crashing at 45mph indicates that the speed wasn't safe. Perhaps looking at the cause of the crash would be more helpful? Or perhaps looking at the causes of the 95% of crashes that don't involve ANY speeding vehicle?
Anyway, I expect it's inspired by someone with a vested interest.
How does he know this car was doing 45 mph? Did the driver admit this? There ist a case which Mad Doc reported on Paulie's site ages ago. We even had his sister take some photos as paper was a bit vague.
The driver (a novice) "thought he was about 36 mph" when he "lost it on a bend". What we did not get was "how he lost it" on this particular bend. Mad Doc's brother, two sisters und one of my cousins (GMP BiB .. he ist IG's brother).. have driven this road umpteen times. They came to conclusion speed had to have been higher for him to have collided with the lady crossing the road some 100 metres beyond this bend.
However, police told prosecution that it was possible but they could not prove it. The driver had admitted being above 30 mph anyway. He received a fine und points..by the way.
Thus .. the writer of this letter cannot be precise about this speed. Was the car pinged at this speed? In which case the scamera was a failure in both saving life und slowing person down .. und thus useless
It does not say .. so 
how can he be so precise about "45 mph"? He may have hit her at 30 mph for all we know. If she had brittler bones .. was hit at vulnerable spot und car was older car or hit at angle.. then 30 mph hit can ist not as "safe as people are led to believe"
If he hit her at 30 mph in 4x4 for example .. complete with bull bars.. then injury would be quite serious. These cars have killed toddlers when handbrake not applied or driver forget she left "in gear" und bucked forwards.
So ..
,... he cannot know speed of this car ... nor if this car was stolen.. or in the "charge" of a driver under whatever influence. Every day we read of properly reported incidents .. with comment by police .. about hit und run drivers... und car found burnt out later.
Interesting!!! That came from the London today Message board that CommanderJameson and Myself contributed to earlier in the week. Link Here(Use the "Show All" Button).
london
I did try to reply again but it "fell" off the front page and it wasn't posted. Again It's a good story with no facts to back it up. No mention of the limit or circumstances etc means it's pointless except to get a response.
london
I did try to reply again but it "fell" off the front page and it wasn't posted. Again It's a good story with no facts to back it up. No mention of the limit or circumstances etc means it's pointless except to get a response.
Edited by telecat on Thursday 1st February 07:41
Edited by telecat on Thursday 1st February 08:22
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff